See also Links and downloads
Showing posts with label Traditions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traditions. Show all posts
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
Monday, 17 December 2012
Sunday, 12 August 2012
Derbyshire Intergroup minutes – an interesting read!
Comment:
This is what happens when the traditions are ignored! Chaos!
Cheerio
The Fellas
(Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS More to follow! Our usual thanks to our correspondent
Saturday, 5 May 2012
TRADITIONS CHECKLIST
These
questions were originally published in the AA Grapevine in
conjunction with a series on the 12 Traditions that began in November
1969 and ran through September 1971. While they were originally
intended primarily for individual use, many AA groups have since used
them as a basis for wider discussion.
Tradition
One: Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends
upon A.A. unity.
1. Am I in
my group a healing, mending, integrating person, or am I divisive?
What about gossip and taking other members inventories?
2. Am I a
peacemaker? Or do I, with pious preludes such as "just
for the sake of discussion," plunge into arguments.
3. Am I
gentle with those who rub me the wrong way, or am I abrasive.
4. Do I
make competitive remarks, such a comparing one group with another or
contrasting A.A. in one place with AA in another?
5. Do I
put down some A.A. activities as if I were superior for not
participating in this or that aspect of A.A.?
6. Am I
informed about A.A. as a whole? Do I support, in every way I can A.A.
as a whole or just the parts I understand and approve of?
7. Am I as
considerate of A.A. members as I want them to be of me?
8 Do I
spout platitudes about love while indulging in and secretly
justifying behavior that bristles with hostility?
9. Do I go
to enough A.A. meetings or read enough A.A. literature to
really keep in touch?
10. Do I
share with A.A. all of me, the bad and the good, accepting as well as
giving the help of fellowship.
Reprinted
from November 1969 Grapevine©
Tradition
Two: For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a
loving God as he may express Himself in our group conscience. Our
leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern
1. Do I
criticize or do I trust and support my group officers, A.A.
committees, and office workers? newcomers? old-timers?
2. Am I
absolutely trustworthy, even in secret, with A.A. twelfth step
jobs or other A.A. responsibility?
3. Do I
look for credit in my A.A. jobs? praise for my A.A. ideas?
4. Do I
have to save face in group discussion, or can I yield in good spirit
to the group consensus and work cheerfully along with it?
5.
Although I have been sober a few years, am I still willing to serve
my turn at A.A. chores?
6. In
group discussions, do I sound off about matters on which I have no
experience and little knowledge?
Reprinted
from December 1969 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Three: The only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop
drinking.
1. In
my mind, do I prejudge some new A.A. members as losers?
2. Is
there some kind of alcoholic whom I privately do not want in my A.A.
group?
3. Do I
set myself up as a judge of whether a newcomer is sincere or phony?
4. Do I
let language, religion (or the lack of it), race, education, age, or
other such things interfere with my carrying the message?
5. Am I
over impressed by a celebrity? By a doctor, a clergyman, an
ex-convict? Or can I just treat this new member simply and naturally
as one more sick human, like the rest of us?
6. When
someone turns up at A.A., needing information or help (even if he
can't ask for it aloud), does it really matter to me what he does for
a living? Where he lives? What his domestic arrangements are? Whether
he has been to A.A. before? What his other problems are?
Reprinted
from January 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Four: Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting
other groups or A.A. as a whole.
1. Do I
insist that there are only a few right ways of doing things in A.A.?
2. Does
my group always consider the welfare of the rest of A.A.? Of
nearby groups? Of loners in Alaska? Of internationalists miles from
port? Of a group in Rome or El Salvador?
3. Do I
put down other members behavior when it is different from mine,
or do I learn from it?
4. Do I
always bear in mind that, to those outsiders who know I am in A.A.
may I to some extent represent our entire beloved fellowship?
5. Am I
willing to help a newcomer go to any lengths - his lengths, not
mine- to stay sober?
6. Do I
share my knowledge of A.A. tools with other members who may not have
heard of them?
Reprinted
from April 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Five: Each group has but one primary purpose - to carry its message
to the alcoholic who still suffers.
1. Do I
ever cop out by saying, " I'm not a group, so this or that
Tradition doesn't apply to me"?
2. Am I
willing to explain firmly to a newcomer the limitations of A.A. help,
even if he gets mad at me for not giving him a loan?
3. Have I
today imposed on any A.A. member for a special favor or consideration
simply because I am a fellow alcoholic?
4. Am I
willing to twelfth-step the next newcomer without regard to who or
what is in it for me?
5. Do I
help my group in every way I can to fulfill our primary purpose?
6. Do I
remember that A.A. old-timers, too, can be alcoholics who still
suffer? Do I try to help them and to learn from them?
Reprinted
from June 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Six: An AA group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the A.A. name
to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of
money, property, and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
1. Should
my fellow group members and I raise money to endow several A.A. beds
in our local hospital?
2. Is it
good for a group to lease a small building?
3 Are all
the officers and members of our local club for A.A.'s familiar with
"Guidelines on Clubs" (which is available free from G.S.O)?
4. Should
the secretary of our group serve on the mayor's advisory committee on
alcoholism?
5. Some
alcoholics will stay around A.A. only if we have a TV and card room.
If this is what is requires to carry the message to them, shouldn't
we have these facilities?
Reprinted
from August 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Seven: Every AA group ought to be fully self- supporting, declining
outside contributions.
1.
Honestly now, do I do all I can to help A.A. (my group, my central
office, my G.S.O) remain self-supporting? Could I put a little more
into the basket on behalf of the new guy who can't afford it yet? How
generous was I when tanked in a barroom?
2. Should
the Grapevine sell advertising space to book publishers and drug
companies, so it could make a big profit and become a bigger
magazine, in full color, at a cheaper price per copy?
3. If
G.S.O runs short on funds some year, wouldn't be okay to let the
government subsidize AA groups in hospitals and prisons?
4. Is it
more important to get a big AA collection from a few people, or a
smaller collection in which more members participate?
5. Is a
groups treasurer's report unimportant A.A. business? How does the
treasurer feel about it?
6. How
important in my recovery is the feeling of self respect, rather than
the feeling of being always under obligation for charity received.
Reprinted
from June 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Eight - Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non- professional,
but our service centers may employ special workers.
1. Is my
own behavior accurately described by the Traditions? If not, what
needs changing?
2. When
I chafe about any particular Tradition, do I realize how it affects
others.
3. Do I
sometimes try to get some reward - even if not money - for my
personal A.A. efforts.
4. Do I
try to sound in A.A. like an expert on alcoholism? On recovery?
On medicine? On sociology? On A.A. itself? On psychology? On
spiritual matters? Or, heaven help me, even on humility?
5. Do I
make an effort to understand what A.A. employees do? What workers in
other alcoholism agencies do? Can I distinguish clearly among them?
6. In my
own A.A. life, have I any experiences which illustrate the wisdom of
this Tradition?
7. Have
I paid enough attention to the book TWELVE STEPS AND TWELVE
TRADITIONS? To the pamphlet "A.A. Tradition - How it
Developed"?
Reprinted
from December 1970 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Nine: A. A. as such, ought never be organized; but we may create
service boards or committees directly responsible to those they
serve.
1. Do I
still try to boss things in A.A.?
2. Do I
resist formal aspects of A.A. because I fear them as authoritative?
.3. Am
I mature enough to understand and use all elements of the A.A.
program - even if no one makes me do so - with a sense of personal
responsibility?
4. Do I
exercise patience and humility in any A.A. job I take?
5. Am I
aware of all those to whom I am responsible in any A.A. job?
6. Why
doesn't every A.A. group need a constitution and bylaws?
7. Have I
learned to step out of an A.A. job gracefully - and profit thereby -
when the time comes?
8. What
has rotation to do with anonymity? With humility?
Reprinted
from February 1971 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Ten: Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the
A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
1. Do I
ever give the impression that there really is an "A.A. opinion"
on Antabuse? Tranquilizers? Doctors? Psychiatrists? Churches?
Hospitals? Jails? Alcohol? The Federal or state government?
Legalizing marijuana? Vitamins? Al-Anon? Alateen?
2. Can I
honestly share my own personal experience concerning any of those
without giving the impression I am stating the " A.A opinion "?
3. What in
A.A. history gave rise to our Tenth Tradition?
4. Have I
had a similar experience in my own A.A. life?
5. What
would A.A. be without this Tradition? Where would I be?
6. Do I
breach this or any of its supporting Traditions in subtle, perhaps
unconscious, ways?
7. How can
I manifest the spirit of this Tradition in my personal life outside
A.A.? Inside A.A.?
Reprinted
from the May 1971 Grapevine©
Tradition
Eleven: Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather
then promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the
level of press, radio, and films.
1. Do I
sometimes promote A.A. so fanatically that I make it seem
unattractive?
2. Am I
always careful to keep the confidences reposed in me as an A.A.
member?
3. Am I
careful about throwing A.A. names around - even within the
Fellowship?
4. Am I
ashamed of being a recovered, or recovering, alcoholic?
5. What
would A.A. be like if we were not guided by the ideas in Tradition
eleven? Where would I be?
6. Is
my A.A. sobriety attractive enough that a sick drunk would want such
a quality for himself?
Reprinted
from the July 1971 Grapevine ©
Tradition
Twelve: Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our Traditions,
ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.
1. Why
is it a good idea for me to place the common welfare of all A.A.
members before individual welfare? What would happen to me if
A.A. as a whole disappeared?
2. When I
do not trust A.A.'s current servants, who do I wish had the authority
to straighten them out?
3. In
my opinions of and remarks about other A.A.'s, am I implying
membership requirements other than a desire to stay sober?
4. Do I
ever try to get a certain A.A. group to conform to my standards, not
its own?
5. Have I
a personal responsibility in helping an A.A. group fulfill its
primary purpose? What is my part?
6. Does my
personal behavior reflect the Sixth Tradition - or belie it?
7. Do I do
all I can do to support A.A. financially? When is the last time I
anonymously gave away a Grapevine subscription?
8. Do I
complain about certain A.A.'s' behavior - especially if they are
paid to work for A A? Who made me so smart?
9. Do I
fulfill all A.A. responsibilities in such a way as to please
privately even my own conscience? Really?
10. Do my
utterances always reflect the Tenth Tradition, or do I give A.A.
critics real ammunition?
11. Should
I keep my A.A. membership a secret, or reveal it in private
conversation when that may help another alcoholic (and therefore me)?
Is my brand of A A so attractive that other drunks want it?
12. What
is the real importance of me among 500,000 AA's?
Reprinted
from the September 1971 Grapevine ©
Source: aa tradition
(our
emphases)
Comment:
We found this useful check list out there in internet land. As
always, and in the spirit only of being helpful, we thought we'd
emphasise the more relevant points for our cult readers!
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Thursday, 12 January 2012
A Minority report (continued)
“SECTION
1
Analysis
of past and current events, USA, Canada, UK
The
following is an extract from A.A. Comes of Age. Bill W’s response
to protect A.A.’s public relations by thwarting the plans of a
potential figurehead with a “wonderful vision” and his “message”.
Today one only has to replace the word “radio” with “website.”
An example of TraditionTwo and Concept
IX in action:
“An old
story, revealing several aspects of A.A.’s public relations
problem, comes to mind: One of our pioneer members conceived the idea
of starting a group in his city by radio….. So our promoter friend
constructed a series of ‘Twelve Lectures on Alcoholics Anonymous.’
These were a strange mixture of A.A. and his own religious ideas. He
soon put them on air with all the vigour of a Chautauqua orator.
Contrary to our expectations, he got a modest result. Inquiries came
in and he started a group. Now flushed with success, he was smitten
with a wonderful vision......... We advised him that the trustees
felt his message inappropriate for national consumption. So he wrote
a hot letter to this effect: ‘To hell with the trustees, the world
is waiting for my message. I’ve got the right to free speech and
I’m going on air whether you like it or not.’ This ultimatum was
an alarming poser. It looked like promotion, professionalism, and
anonymity-breaking all in one package…. every ad man and salesman
in Alcoholics Anonymous would soon be selling A.A.’s wares,
willy-nilly. We would loose control of our public relations.………….
We assured our well-meaning friend that we would certainly uphold his
right to free speech. But we added that he ought to uphold ours, too.
We assured him that if his ‘lectures’ went on air, we would
advise every A.A. group of the circumstances and ask them to write
strong letters to the sponsoring life assurance company, letters of a
kind the sponsor might not like to receive. The broadcast never went
on air.” (AA comes of Age pages 130-131)
The
following is another example of Tradition Two and Concept IX in
action; an A.A. committee taking an uncompromising stand against a
power driving leader in 1958. This action split the A.A. group, thus
protecting A.A. from wider disunity and subsequent bad press. True to
Tradition Two, the prediction that the “arch deacon” would either
accept the group conscience or wind up drunk came eventually, but
only after 20 years. The subsequent history of Synanon shows that a
cult run by an alcoholic can be very successful with long-term
viability. The group’s leader Chuck D (who incidentally was to some
years later appoint himself Pope, and his wife, High Priestess of the
cult Church of Synanon), recalled his 1958 not so spiritual baptism
with concept IX, wonderfully executed by A.A. trusted servants.
They
intuitively knew how handle situations which seem to baffle us today.
“It happened right in
the middle of an A.A. meeting. Our whole gang had taken over the
Saturday night meeting of the Santa Monica A.A. group at Twenty Sixth
and Broadway and built it up from its attendance of ten people to an
attendance of about forty five or fifty. There was some objection on
some issue by the members of the Board of Directors of the A.A. club.
I recall the leader stopping the meeting. They didn’t like us. The
alkies didn’t like the addicts, and they didn’t like me in
particular…and they didn’t like my gang because they were mostly
addicts. They made things difficult for us. I remember getting up in
the meeting and saying, ‘All right, let’s go home-the hell with
this.’ So the whole meeting got up, and we all got into our
automobiles and came down to the club, and we never went back to A.A.
again.” (From the Desk of Juan Lesende: How Drug Abuse Treatment
Turns into Mistreatment By Juan E. Lesende - September 18th 2009)
Where
did it come from? Synanon Church and the medical basis for the
$traights:
Wikipedia
– Synanon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon
Chuck
Dederich Still Rules Synanon, but Now He Has 1,300 Subjects and a $22
Million Empire -- By Barbara Wilkins
--PEOPLE magazine's archive: October 11, 1976, Vol. 6, No. 15:
Dederick
Charles E: (The link may show “no text available”, if so click
blue link “search for this page title”.
Search
results may show “No page title matches”, If so click on the blue
“Dederick Charles E link, about halfway down the page.):
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Dederick%2C_Charles_E.
Finding Aid for the Mitchell-Synanon Litigation Papers, 1979-1989 University of Tennessee Special Collections Library, Knoxville, TN: http://www.lib.utk.edu/spcoll/manuscripts/1711.html
We
wonder how A.A. would have responded, if Chuck had decided to operate
his franchise as an autonomous group of A.A., for example “the
Synanon group of A.A.” instead of going it alone. Or if the A.A.
members had left the A.A. group all to Chuck by saying “Each group
is autonomous!” “Live and let live!” “Vote with your feet!”
instead of having the backbone to stand and defend A.A. Tradition.
Would the intergroups and GSO of the 1960s have continued to register
his groups and how much damage would the extraordinary abuses that
were to occur in his cult have done to A.A.’s public relations,
were his cult to have remained in A.A.?”
Comment:
Again largely self-explanatory. The above indicates how effectively
direct action by clear-thinking AA members (who moreover have some
knowledge of our guiding principles) can nip a problem in the bud.
You will note moreover that the action came from the AA groups and
members, and not from other parts of the service structure. In
addition to the above we would cite Tradition Three here:
3.—Our
membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we
may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever
depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics
gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group,
provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
(our
emphasis)
This
clearly demonstrates that those groups that possess outside
connections may NOT call themselves an AA group. Moreover the
decision as to whether they are or are NOT so denominated is NOT
solely theirs to make. We refer here to Tradition Four (the much
misquoted Tradition Four!):
4.—With
respect to its own affairs, each A.A. group should be responsible to
no other authority than its own conscience. But when its plans
concern the welfare of neighboring groups also, those groups ought to
be consulted. And no group, regional committee, or individual
should ever take any action that might greatly affect A.A. as a whole
without conferring with the trustees of the General Service Board. On
such issues our common welfare is paramount.
(our
emphases)
If
a group (or groups) acts in such a way (knowingly) and fails
subsequently to mend its conduct it then becomes the responsibility
(and indeed duty) of other groups to take the requisite action (which
may include denying that group (or groups) the use of the AA name,
this to ensure “our common welfare” remains “paramount”.
Moreover
this principle extends not only to outside affiliations but even
further. See Tradition Ten:
10.—No
A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate
A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial
issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian
religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning
such matters they can express no views whatever.
From
this it can be seen that similarly those groups (and in this instance
even an AA member) should abstain (but only insofar as they might be
seen as implicating AA) from such conduct. Therefore those groups
that espouse a particular religious or non-religious interpretation
(atheistic, agnostic (see Toronto AA below), Christian, Buddhist,
Moslem etc), or political orientation etc are in breach of this
tradition. Note that the category of “controversial issues”
relates to those “outside” the immediate purview of AA; this does
not include the airing of controversial views WITHIN the Fellowship
and ABOUT the Fellowship. The intention of this tradition is clearly
not to stifle debate but rather to define its parameters within a
given context. Those members who seek to “shut down” all debate
on “controversy” grounds have missed the point! Additionally the
word “particularly” is employed which suggests that the list is
not exhaustive but intended to be exemplary and selective. Therefore
other issues too may be considered as being included within this
category.
In
this connection we cite Tradition Three again (and as an example of a
breach of Tradition Four):
3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
3.—Our membership ought to include all who suffer from alcoholism. Hence we may refuse none who wish to recover. Nor ought A.A. membership ever depend upon money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation.
From
this it can be seen that as stated in the short form of this
tradition:
Three—The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking
It
follows from this therefore that ANY AA member may attend ANY AA
meeting in the world without ANY further qualification. Those groups
which seek to impose further qualifications on admission are in clear
breach of this tradition (amongst others). This would include the
so-called “non-restrictive” meetings (generally women's only),
the ethnically specific meetings, gay/lesbian meetings, young
people's meetings etc. All of these run contrary not only to this
tradition but also Tradition One:
1.—Each
member of Alcoholics Anonymous is but a small part of a great whole.
A.A. must continue to live or most of us will surely die. Hence our
common welfare comes first. But individual welfare follows close
afterward.
Note
the word “whole”.
Finally
as an update to the above theme we refer you to a selection of links
covering the Toronto Atheists ban:
Needless
to say (in our view) Toronto AA got it right!
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
PS
Some of the links in the original report are not functioning. We have
renewed them here but members are advised otherwise to use the link
details in a search engine to discover the new location
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
More 'bleating' from “Wessex (cult) Intergroup”!
'Fraid so. They're at it again! And back in full 'victim' mode - and with a lecture thrown in for good measure! Here's the latest offering from our little friends – the 'pointed headed' ones – in a communication addressed to anyone who can be bothered to listen. Well someone has to …...dammit!
(our emphasis)
But Tradition 2 does get a look in. Again:
2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
Presumably their ire here is directed towards the failure of “our leaders” to behave like their (the cult's) “trusted servants”. It must be really irritating dealing with people who simply will not do the “right thing” and follow cult orders. Remember you must always do “exactly what your sponsor says”! Tut tut tut! Naughty AA members! Slaps on the wrist all round we say! Or then again is it the sheer temerity of the intergroups concerned daring to “...... follow their group conscience alone”! But isn't that after all what the Tradition says? ie. “there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience”. The cult's argument here seems very confused if not contradictory! But then again they are rather prone that way! “Tired and emotional” we think the expression is! Anyway, and to adopt a more serious tone, various objections are raised by the cult on procedural matters. The fact that the two intergroups mentioned have repeatedly said no to the Bournemouth Road to Recovery (cult) group - and repeatedly told them why - does not seem to have quite sunk in. Essentially they have been designated “too controversial” (which includes minor stuff like abusive sponsorship, outside affiliations, breaching guidelines and traditions, interfering with medical diagnosis and so on and so forth). Of course they deny all this but then as a friend of ours from the area expresses it: “Q: How can you tell when a cult member is lying? A: When you see their lips moving”. Now we come to Tradition 3 which is:
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
At this point the concepts are dragged into the equation specifically THE RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION. Again for your edification:
IV At all responsible levels, we ought to maintain a traditional "Right of Participation," allowing a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge. (short form)
Apart from the specific application of this guideline the general principle indicated hardly applies to the situation in south-west Region. These intergroups are clearly not acting on the basis of punishing anyone but rather in the interests of preserving the integrity, well-being and effectiveness of both Alcoholics Anonymous and its membership (and with especial emphasis on the safety of those who come to us for help). It is as ridiculous to suggest that these service structures are acting from malign intent as it is to propose that a surgeon bears a grudge against a tumour he/she is excising from a patient's body; the well-being of the “whole” person can only be secured by such an intervention. (but see aacultwatch forum: “Cult Failure Rates” - for a more detailed analysis of the problem together with the (properly) cited “Conceptual” underpinning). The paragraph concludes with a reference to “vested interest” and includes a rather transparent attempt to seek to “divide and rule” the two intergroups. The only “vested interest” that we can detect is the one we have outlined above ie. the well-being etc of AA; but then this has never been high on the cult's agenda! The letter meanders on for a while longer, a mixture of “trumpet blowing” and a nod in the direction of AA unity with offers of co-operation intertwined with more accusations directed towards the two existing (and legitimate AA intergroups) ie. “discriminatory bias and egocentric bigotry”. How to win friends and influence people? Probably not - and hardly redolent of “With love in Fellowship” with which this particularly confused missive rather unconvincingly concludes.
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
(our usual thanks for our reporter's contribution)
As you can see it's the usual mix of self-justification, selective recall, tradition and concept 'mangling' and with the blame fully allocated to everyone else of course. Remember the key cult axiom! We (the cult) are always right and you (AA) are always wrong! Got it! Good! Now we can continue..... Here various traditions (and Concepts) are mentioned although strangely enough Tradition 4 is omitted from this catalogue of misquotes and misrepresentations. The cult are not at all keen on Tradition 4. It is very very very inconvenient (especially that annoying second bit!). To remind you:
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
(our emphasis)
But Tradition 2 does get a look in. Again:
2. For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
Presumably their ire here is directed towards the failure of “our leaders” to behave like their (the cult's) “trusted servants”. It must be really irritating dealing with people who simply will not do the “right thing” and follow cult orders. Remember you must always do “exactly what your sponsor says”! Tut tut tut! Naughty AA members! Slaps on the wrist all round we say! Or then again is it the sheer temerity of the intergroups concerned daring to “...... follow their group conscience alone”! But isn't that after all what the Tradition says? ie. “there is but one ultimate authority—a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience”. The cult's argument here seems very confused if not contradictory! But then again they are rather prone that way! “Tired and emotional” we think the expression is! Anyway, and to adopt a more serious tone, various objections are raised by the cult on procedural matters. The fact that the two intergroups mentioned have repeatedly said no to the Bournemouth Road to Recovery (cult) group - and repeatedly told them why - does not seem to have quite sunk in. Essentially they have been designated “too controversial” (which includes minor stuff like abusive sponsorship, outside affiliations, breaching guidelines and traditions, interfering with medical diagnosis and so on and so forth). Of course they deny all this but then as a friend of ours from the area expresses it: “Q: How can you tell when a cult member is lying? A: When you see their lips moving”. Now we come to Tradition 3 which is:
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Now it would seem that in this instance the cult is confusing participation within the service structure with membership of AA. As far as we can tell there is nothing indicated in the two intergroups' conduct which suggest that they have the least intention of denying any member (including cult members) the right to attend AA meetings. They have simply declined the cult group's request to join their intergroups. This is quite a different matter and absolutely nothing to do with Tradition 3. So this objection may really be termed “a fish of quite another hue” or otherwise: A RED HERRING!
At this point the concepts are dragged into the equation specifically THE RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION. Again for your edification:
IV At all responsible levels, we ought to maintain a traditional "Right of Participation," allowing a voting representation in reasonable proportion to the responsibility that each must discharge. (short form)
You will note from this that the right refers specifically to “voting representation” etc and moreover as it is applied within the “Conference structure”. It does not refer to the supposed “right” of a cult group to join a local intergroup. This may not be called a “red herring” so much as a complete non sequitur – or just a lot of hooey in plain English - or American if you like! (See here for Concept IV in full detail). We're getting slightly bored here (as doubtless you are as well) but we'll Carry On Regardless – oooh I saaay!! So now we come to “punitive action”. This expression derives from Concept XII, Warranty 5. Again:
Warranty Five: “That no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy.”
Apart from the specific application of this guideline the general principle indicated hardly applies to the situation in south-west Region. These intergroups are clearly not acting on the basis of punishing anyone but rather in the interests of preserving the integrity, well-being and effectiveness of both Alcoholics Anonymous and its membership (and with especial emphasis on the safety of those who come to us for help). It is as ridiculous to suggest that these service structures are acting from malign intent as it is to propose that a surgeon bears a grudge against a tumour he/she is excising from a patient's body; the well-being of the “whole” person can only be secured by such an intervention. (but see aacultwatch forum: “Cult Failure Rates” - for a more detailed analysis of the problem together with the (properly) cited “Conceptual” underpinning). The paragraph concludes with a reference to “vested interest” and includes a rather transparent attempt to seek to “divide and rule” the two intergroups. The only “vested interest” that we can detect is the one we have outlined above ie. the well-being etc of AA; but then this has never been high on the cult's agenda! The letter meanders on for a while longer, a mixture of “trumpet blowing” and a nod in the direction of AA unity with offers of co-operation intertwined with more accusations directed towards the two existing (and legitimate AA intergroups) ie. “discriminatory bias and egocentric bigotry”. How to win friends and influence people? Probably not - and hardly redolent of “With love in Fellowship” with which this particularly confused missive rather unconvincingly concludes.
Cheerio
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
(our usual thanks for our reporter's contribution)
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for the hand of AA to always be there!
An extract from the aacultwatch forum (with permission) under message heading: Cult Failure Rates
“….... I would like you to take a look at the cult of Synanon, I think it is an important piece of contemporary A.A. history, because the separation from A.A. at its beginning demonstrates Tradition Two and Concept IX (for Concepts click here) in action. The courage of the A.A. group members to stand against a power driving leader Chuck D. and his followers, caused the split in the A.A. group, thus protecting A.A. from wider disunity and subsequent bad press. True to Tradition Two, the prediction that the “arch deacon” would either conform to the group conscience or wind up drunk came eventually, but only after 20 years.
I wonder how A.A. would have responded if Chuck had decided to operate his franchise as an autonomous group of A.A., for example “the Synanon group of A.A.” instead of going it alone. Or if the A.A. group members had left the A.A. group all to Chuck by saying “Each group is autonomous! Live and let live! vote with your feet!” instead of having the balls and backbone to have a row for the sake of Traditional A.A. Would the intergroups and GSO of the 1960s have continued to register his groups and how much damage would the extraordinary abuses that were to occur in his cult have done to A.A. public relations, were his cult to have remained in A.A.?
Any society which is indifferent to the abuse of the vulnerable is destined to corruption and collapse, A.A. will be no exception unless measures are put in place to prevent it. I think for a cult group to last 10 years such as the Joys, is not acceptable. It shows an immoral failure of duty of care, a failure of Traditions, Concepts and warranties of conference; especially Tradition Two, concepts IX, XII (warranties 5 and 6). I think there needs to be responsible intervention at group/intergroup level where abuse is reported if vulnerable people and our public relations are to be protected from those who, as Bill W. put it, are “a trifle sicker than the rest of us.” (Concept IX). For Tradition Two to operate in A.A., it has to coincide with the type of leadership described in concept IX, it cannot function without it.
I think A.A. is dealing with a new phenomenon, for which most are unprepared. It presents a conundrum and it is a toxic cocktail of the following ingredients: Global internet communication; the outside influence of a very narrow minded fundamentalist Christian re-write of A.A’s program and history, by authors such as Wally P, Dick B., and Joe McQ; a generation of “elder statesmen” who have no experience of dealing with a serious problem in A.A; who also lack knowledge of A.A. history and the ability to apply Traditions and Concepts; and the majority of whom appear to see no threat in placing individual liberty above that of our common welfare.
This cocktail has produced not so much cult groups, but a collection of cult groups which together amount to a neo-Oxford Group fundamentalist movement with international connections and figureheads as leaders. Joys of Recovery, (Detroit-London), Primary Purpose Group of AA (Dallas), (Global affiliation), Cliff B. Myers R., Chris R., Back to Basics, Wally P.(Global affiliation), Road to recovery Plymouth(Wayne P) etc.
In 1941 the good news was written in the press and A.A. began to take off: “Because of the absence of figureheads and the fact there is no formal body of belief to promote, they have no fears that Alcoholics Anonymous will degenerate into a cult.” (Jack Alexander article about AA, page 23), I wonder if the co-founders of AA would say the same thing if they were around today.
http://www.aa.org/pdf/products/p-12_theJackAlexArticle.pdf
Today our public image is not so good.
1998: The Independent: "Cult or cure: the AA backlash" ---- "Alcoholics Anonymous is under attack. Those who have been through its mill claim it is `authoritarian' and `fascistic', employs brainwashing techniques and is cult-like in its attitude to members. Ursula Kenny talks to the disaffected who have rejected its road to recovery...."
There can be no doubt that A.A. is getting the reputation of being a cult. To avoid further loss of public confidence in A.A. and if vulnerable people are to be protected from abuse, then I think we need to see a lot more example of the Santa Monica pro A.A. Tradition elder statesmanship of 1958. (Concept IX in action). --In this modern world however, to be of effect to meet the present day needs of the fellowship, I think this needs to be both communicated and operating throughout the A.A. World Service Structure, top to bottom, as soon as possible. The “arch deacon” of Tradition Two, Chuck D., (who incidentally was to some years later appoint himself Pope of the cult Church of Synanon) recalled his 1958 not so spiritual baptism of concept IX, wonderfully executed by A.A. trusted servants. They intuitively knew how handle situations which seem to baffle us today.
“It happened right in the middle of an A.A. meeting. Our whole gang had taken over the Saturday night meeting of the Santa Monica A.A. group at Twenty Sixth and Broadway and built it up from its attendance of ten people to an attendance of about forty five or fifty. There was some objection on some issue by the members of the Board of Directors of the A.A. club. I recall the leader stopping the meeting. They didn’t like us. The alkies didn’t like the addicts, and they didn’t like me in particular…and they didn’t like my gang because they were mostly addicts. They made things difficult for us. I remember getting up in the meeting and saying, ‘All right, lets go home-the hell with this.’ So the whole meeting got up, and we all got into our automobiles and came down to the club, and we never went back to A.A. again.”
(From the Desk of Juan Lesende: How Drug Abuse Treatment Turns into Mistreatment By Juan E. Lesende - September 18th 2009)
Chuck Dederich Still Rules Synanon, but Now He Has 1,300 Subjects and a $22 Million Empire -- By Barbara Wilkins --PEOPLE magazine's archive: October 11, 1976, Vol. 6, No. 15: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20066985,00.html
Wikipedia – Synanon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanon
Dederick Charles E: ( The link may show “no text available”, if so click blue link “search for this page title”. Search results may show “No page title matches”, If so click on the blue “Dederick Charles E link, about halfway down the page.): http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Dederick%2C_Charles_E.
Finding Aid for the Mitchell-Synanon Litigation Papers, 1979-1989 University of Tennessee Special Collections Library, Knoxville, TN: http://dlc.lib.utk.edu/f/fa/fulltext/1711.html”
Comment: Think on that! Our usual thanks to the contributor of the above piece - and for such an excellent analysis!
Cheers
The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)